Next-Gen Nuclear Power Plant Breaks Ground In China 426
An anonymous reader writes "The construction of first next-generation Westinghouse nuclear power reactor breaks ground in Sanmen, China. The reactor, expected to generate 12.7 Megawatts by 2013, costs 40 billion Yuan (~US$6 billion; that's a lot of iPods.) According to Westinghouse, 'The AP1000 is the safest and most economical nuclear power plant available in the worldwide commercial marketplace, and is the only Generation III+ reactor to receive Design Certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.' However, Chinese netizens suspect China is being used as a white rat to test unproven nuclear technologies (comments in Chinese)." Update: 04/20 07:28 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, this plant will generate much more than 12.7 Megawatts -- more like 1100 MWe.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Units? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, but in turn it is green. It doesn't generate CO2:-)
The numbers are all wrong.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a 1.2GW plant. The current order is for four reactors, for 8 billion dollars. The price is expected to fall to about 1 billion per reactor. China has a goal of building 100 reactors by 2020. IF the USA built that many, it would cut power plant greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, or the equivalent of nearly a million windmills.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Units? (Score:4, Insightful)
From a related article [xinhuanet.com]:
So it appears that the real cost is closer to 5.88 / (2 * 1.25) = $2.35 per watt. Still expensive, but not outlandish. I'm in the process of installing a 4kw grid of solar panels on my own roof for a cost (after subsidies/rebates) of $17k, so $4.25 / watt. For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.
That's a lot of iPods (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Units? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in the process of installing a 4kw grid of solar panels on my own roof for a cost (after subsidies/rebates) of $17k, so $4.25 / watt. For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.
$4.25/Watt-peak, not Watt. It's not the same.
Also, the Nuke power plant gives 1.2gW constant. Day and night. Sunny or rainy.
Not quite a good comparison.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. Three Mile Island. That's the only one you have to know
TMI's operator's insurance company payed out US$40M in lawsuits. Not much, even in 1980 dollars.
Ah cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Western Nuclear Technology is Safe (Score:4, Insightful)
McMansion - powerplants (Score:1, Insightful)
In the last few months, I moved to a "McMansion" neighborhood. You know, upscale homes made en-mass with your choice of 4 shades of beige and 4 floor plans, which are really 2 floor plans but mirrored left-to-right.
At first, I thought that I'd hate it. But I love it!
The homes are spacious, comfortable, and stylish. The yards are small but pretty, and easily manicured with an electric lawn mower. The floor plan is just EXCELLENT with all the details thought through.
There's alot to be said for doing a single design very, very well and replicating it.
Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and if the US continues to do nothing about AGW other than spread FUD about China "not pulling their weight" then in 2020 the US may find all their imports/exports hit with carbon tarrifs.
Who would do that? Europe doesn't have the guts and I doubt China will be interested. India probably will continue to be worse off than the US is as far as producing CO2. And the Middle East isn't going to be remotely interested in killing their sole export. That doesn't leave much.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (Score:4, Insightful)
> No offense, but nobody in Europe has done anything that bold since France abandoned its colonies in the 50's.
So the opening of the iron curtain, German unification, replacement of several currencies with the Euro, standing up to a certain US OS producer is not ?
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who invokes Chernobyl as an argument against modern nuclear power had better have a good grasp of what actually happened at Chernobyl and why it isn't applicable outside of Chernobyl.
Re:Wind power costs the same, with no nasty cleanu (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at two numbers here:
8.9 billion kWh per year
and
153 million kWh per year.
And - oh wait, there's just the trivial need to have them...
combined with solar, geothermal and other renewable resources, they will provide a fairly stable power supply
A nuclear power plant needs none of this to provide a *very* stable power supply, and is neatly placed in one spot, with a much smaller overall infrastructure build than a miscellaneous hodge-podge of various power sources scattered wherever the environment is suitable for them. It's also proven to work very well at base load generation.
So, which would you rather spend $0.049/kWh on -- a nuclear plant that might go over budget, might leak radiation at some point during its life, whose waste will need to be carefully controlled and permanently stored somewhere that hasn't yet been identified; or a wind farm whose costs are much more certain and which comes without all those ancillary risks?
I would prefer to spend my 4.9cents per kWh on something that will reliably produce base load power 24/7 thanks. Come back in 20 years when some other sucker^W fearless forward-thinker has lost a pile of cash getting the tech tamed and into the markeplace.
Re:Perhaps 3 orders of magnitude more power (Score:3, Insightful)
An AP-1000 is a descendant of the AP-600. The AP-600 is a 600 Mega Watt reactor and the AP-1000 is a 1 Giga Watt reactor.
Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (Score:4, Insightful)
> The Iron Curtain was lifted by the Russians.
IIRC the iron curtain was established by the USSR to keep it's people in. The collapse start in the late 80s in Hungary, and cascaded as other states saw people travelling behind the curtain then leaving to the west through the nearest "hole". I.e. it collapsed state by state, like a dam burst growing from a small hole.
> German unification is just a process that all involved parties agreed to.
True neither within German, nor outside of Germany.
> The Euro was a matter of mutual benefit.
Mutual to whom ? The states, the people, multinationals ? The Euro is not universally popular by any means, and has been refused by some countries.
> And standing up to a weak, foreign company (namely Microsoft)? I don't see any signs of bravery here. :-)
OK, I confess: that was a Slashdot-pleasing throw-away comment from a European to the US readers
Re:Wind power costs the same, with no nasty cleanu (Score:4, Insightful)
So, which would you rather spend $0.049/kWh on -- a nuclear plant that might go over budget, might leak radiation at some point during its life, whose waste will need to be carefully controlled and permanently stored somewhere that hasn't yet been identified; or a wind farm whose costs are much more certain and which comes without all those ancillary risks?
Remember China doesn't have the NIMBYism that the US and Europe has. The waste will be recycled when possible and put in the ground when not possible.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, Chernobyl was largely not caused by human error. It was due to pure bloody mindedness inherent in the USSR and a dangerous reactor design that made even more dangerous by disabling critical safety systems.
Everyone likes to paint TMI as a huge disaster that should be ranked with Chernobyl, yet TMI was no more serious than a small, controlled release of radioactive gas which quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. Which funnily enough is the exact sort of thing that coal plants do all the time yet nobody appears to live in mortal terror of them. TMI is only considered major because the danger was inflated and the government instilled panic by evacuating large numbers of people. Combine that with a little lobbying from coal and oil companies and you get the current disaster that is US policy on nuclear energy.
Re:Units? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:3, Insightful)
You still exhibit one of the most annoying features of Slashdot. That is, requesting exhaustive proof or documentation from someone whenever you want to make a point or disagree.
It's a fucking discussion board on the internet.
In this case, why don't you do you own damned homework and then post an assertive statement regarding nuclear power's overwhelmingly positive track record on safety when viewed over the long term.
Why do I get the feeling that many of your co-workers think you are an annoying ass?
And I'm for nuclear plants BTW.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet despite all of this, it didn't go "bang" and it hasn't happened before or after. I'm not arguing that accidents can't happen, or that reactor design is perfect and can never go wrong, but what TMI shows is that even when things do go wrong, they can be managed.
On a scale of 1-10 there is still a huge, huge gap between TMI and Chernobyl. The two can't be compared at all.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the prevailing opinion on a subject matter is contrary to your own, the onus is on you to demonstrate the facts and "win hearts and minds."
Getting e-angry and insulting your detractors isn't going to help change popular perception of nuclear safety in the slightest.
Re:The numbers are all wrong.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. Sweden is using techniques such as encouraging people to bike to work or car pool or ensuring factories have low emissions. China simply has 1 billion people without electricity or running water.
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:5, Insightful)
TIn both cases, better training and adhering to safety protocols would have saved lives
Saved lives at Three Miles Island? Who died?
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire industrial nuclear cycle has to be taken into account when making that assertion. If you take the view of the last twenty years of reactor operation, you can say that that because you are examining the most trouble free portion of a reactors lifespan for the vast majority of reactors around the world. Basis design issues are mostly identified, Accident sequence precursors are known. However all that changes as the reactor enters the last ten years of it's operation.
So when you include Uranium mining, Fuel enrichment and long term containment of radioactive isotopes, the long term safety record for the nuclear industry looks increasingly pessimistic. I'm not saying they can't be fixed (given funding and political will) but along with ageing reactor design and operational issues aside, every aspect of the industrial nuclear cycle has very sobering issues attached to it when looked at pragmatically.
Re:Units? (Score:4, Insightful)
It may have achieved 97% fuel use, which is very good, but it most certainly did not achieve 97% mass to energy conversion. (I'd have to check, but I'm fairly certain that's not even theoretically possible with the nuclear reactions used.)
Re:Fun with acronyms. (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened at Chernobyl was human error. Yes, the reactor design is bad and unstable, but it can work safely as long as you don't make any silly mistakes (like reduce the power too fast). The same as a car - it can work safely, as long as you do not make silly mistakes (like falling asleep while driving or driving drunk).
But its much less likely to blow up if the design makes it impossible to do so in the first place. Your car analogy would be better served comparing a traffic safety officer driving a volvo to a drunken redneck handed the keys to an F1 race car with no safety equipment. Modern designs are fail-safe, almost anything can go wrong and the worst that will happen is the reactor shuts down, you have to constantly try to balance the unstable point that keeps the reaction going.